Home Invasion in the Second Degree - MCL 750.110a (3) Second degree Home Invasion is another Michigan felony and it is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, a fine of up to $3,000, or both. Michigan Home Invasion in the second degree is similar to Michigan Home Invasion in the first degree, with the difference being that the third element (involvement of a dangerous weapon or someone lawfully inside the dwelling) need not be met. Therefore, a defendant can be found guilty of Second Degree Home Invasion in Michigan the prosecution can prove the following two elements: (1) The defendant must either break and enter a dwelling –or– the defendant must enter a dwelling without permission. (2) The defendant must have formed the intent to commit a larceny, felony, or assault by the time he entered the dwelling –or– the defendant must have actually committed one of those crimes while entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling. If just one of these elements cannot be proven by the prosecutor, the defendant cannot be found guilty of Home Invasion in the second degree.

Basically second degree Home Invasion is a felony because the laptop he stole was valued at $1800, which put it in the felony category instead of a misdemeanor.

In the SEC they just give out $1,800...if you want to get a laptop or not is on you.

In all seriousness, does Michigan not give it's students computers? A lot of big schools do these days. You get it for free as long as it's not lost, stolen or damaged and you return it at the end of every year.

If the school demands all freshman have laptops, it's a way to give out computers to student-athletes in need or from poor backgrounds.

Heck, we got computers at Lawrence Tech and this was back in 2005. We had to place a $500 deposit on them though, and those things went through hell throughout college. I left a lot of good videos on that computer when I returned it...

Is anyone else a bit upset that this kid is back on the field already? People with values and morals don't steal laptops (let alone the fact that you have to really be lacking something up top to steal one known to have tracking software). Is this the type of kid you want roaming Michigan sidelines for the next three years?

Well in that case I'd love to live in your "Do anything you want" world. If he was dumb and insensitive enough to steal somebody else's hard earned laptop how many other offenses do you think he committed without getting caught? What kind of "character" do you assume he has? You think this was his first rodeo?

The question is - do you know what happened? Not what he was charged with, but do you know what really happened? I'm sure you don't, yet you make comments about morals and not wanting "kids like this" on our team. Hoke knows, so does Mattison, and they feel that it's OK for this kid to be roaming our sidelines. They've proven to be high character people, so that's good enough for me.

Actually, innocent people plead guilty all the time. I'm not suggesting it happened in this case, but our criminal justice system is far from perfect.

I had a laptop stolen once and it was pretty devastating, so I understand where you are coming from. But Clark is what, 19 years old? You have to be very careful how you treat these situations because you don't want to mess up a kid's life long-term over one stupid decision.

Especially considering the issues so many people have with criminal records-generally discriminated against in hiring-particularly if one is a minority. Our criminal justice system uses the pressures of minimum sentencing, harsh and unforgiving judges, incredible leeway for prosecutor discretion, and nearly complete insulation against actual review of criminal procedures lead a lot of people to plead guilty when they are innocent or are questionably guilty. Additionally, even though our system breaks things down into guilty and not guilty (ignoring things like supervision etc.) not every situation clearly falls into those two categories. Is it very depressing.

You don't want to mess up a kid's life long-term but there's a fine line between doing that and letting him/her off the hook. Is there any reason why my criminal record and this kid's criminal record should look exactly the same?

I knew kids in college where if their laptop was stolen they were royally screwed. I've seen it firsthand. Not able to complete their homework, having to take out more loans to cover the costs of a new one, the anger/frustration of having to deal with the police. What about the kid who Clark put through this?

We live in a society where rightly, criminals should be punished. To what extent? That's open to interpretation. But what kind of message is this sending to others who want to risk committing the same crime?

Your criminal record won't look the same. He will have a felony on his.

Why do people think the only way to punish people is on a football field? The law will punish him. If the school doesn't expel students for committing the crime, or take away scholarships for committing this crime, then he should be allowed to keep being a student, keep his scholarship, and continue to have the opportunity of other students.

He did plead guilty and his sentencing will be determined at his hearing on the 23rd of October. Needless to say that you need to relax and let the criminal justice system work its course.

I can tell that you hold the U of M student atheles to the same high standard you expect of yourself. Howeva, Your upbringing and Mr Clark's could be completely different and probably are, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is a young man made a bad decision that will make an impact on him the rest of his life. He will always have to answer the question on the application; Yes, I have been arrested or convicted of a felony offense.

And one last thing, We as a nation/state/city/univesity have standards or values that are enforced by our respective criminal justice systems. These systems, unlike you, give people another chance.

but I think you are incorrect. A good friend was convicted of a felony related to a trumpted up stalking charge as part of a domestic dispute. It took ten years but eventially his record was expunged and the judge who expunged his record (the one who sentenced him) told him that he should answer that question no. This is not in the state of Michigan, but here at least expunged means the conviction is treated as if it never happened.

No one said he didn't do something stupid. Do you know the guy? Spent any time with him? Leave it up to coaches who know him, spend significant time with him, can better understand if this is a one time thing or likely to reoccur, and are the ones responsible for making the decisions on his future with the team.

I'm not new to the legal profession. I have practiced law for decades. Yes, people do plead guiltiy on rare occasion to lesser crimes they may not have committed for a host of reasons, but that isn't the case here.

People make mistakes. Hopefully that is what Clark did and if he is smart, he will learn from his mistake. Personally, I can forgive him as few of us are ever perfect. He was caught commiting a crime, he pled guilty and there will be consequences. I also believe it is wrong to make excuses for what Clark did. If it were Dantonio looking the other way, we would be all over him, and justifiably so.

You're laughable dude, and you obviously know absolutely nothing about how the realities of the criminal justice system. A defendant who decides to fight the charges, i.e., pleas not guilty, doesn't garner any favor with the judge and if found guilty, will likely face a far harsher sentence than a defendant who pleads guilty -- especially if it is their first offense. Any lawyer worth his/her salt will never advise his/her client to take that risk unless it is an obvious acquittal -- but then, if it was that obvious, the charges would likely be dropped. When facing a felony that have a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison, if there is even an iota of doubt that you're going to get off, and it's your first offense, it's best to just plead guilty, pay the fine, and take the probation -- especially if you've arrange as much before hand.

Remember, prosecutors are almost always willing to cut deal with defendants in exchange for an easy win, and the subsequent padding of their conviction rates.

How do you know this wasn't a friend's computer that he was just trying to play a prank on? The friend comes home and sees his expensive computer gone and calls the police. I will give you a not well thought out prank, but it is a possibility that I am floating out there.

A similar situation happened to my brother several years ago with a friend’s car. My 18 year old brother thought it would be funny to take his friends extra set of keys and hide his car. The friend came home found his car missing and my brother was arrested for auto theft. Charges were greatly reduced when the facts were laid out, but the prosecutor wouldn't drop the charges so my brother ended up on probation.

You know what the results of the deal were, but you don't know the facts of the case.

I could easily see this being a prank situtation that went horribly wrong. The poor awkward misfit on our dorm hall had his stuff stolen and hidden all the time as pranks. Its not conduct befitting a Michigan Man, but its not stealing to steal either....

I'm not taking sides, but you are completely misrepresenting what the other guy said. His statement was more like "I speed on the freeway, so I probably speed on side streets".

I'm not a big fan of him getting a free pass because he is on our team. How much mud have we slung over MSU's handling of felony arrests? (One being basically the exact same thing) I'm also not a fan of a public beheading, simply because of his status.

In my estimation, one game is pretty light for a felony charge. But I will admit that I don't know the entire circumstance. I do find it odd that so many people flame other teams for this practice, but are firmly in support of Clark. It's kind of best to play Switzerland in all situations that you are unfamiliar with...

How can you say you aren't taking sides, and then say that you think his penalty is a little light? Especially when you then admit that you don't know the circumstances?

Also - don't put the views of individual posters on all of us. How do you know the people who were pissed at MSU are the sames ones in favor of Clark's punishment?

You don't. So either take a side, or don't, but don't get on other people for their view. You can get on them for their reasoning if you want, or their way of expressing it. But if you do, don't claim to be neutral while doing it.

I guarantee if we look hard enough, we'll find many examples of a double standard. If you were not one of the ones bashing Dantonio for the Sims thing, I have no problem with you defending Hoke and Clark. If you were one of the ones trashing his morals, well, I hope you don't have much to say about this. I'm not claiming to know a concrete way to handle the situation, nor would I ever be asked to provide this. I have opinions on the situation, but admit they are not well founded due to lack of information.

But you're assuming that the Sims situation and Clark's situation are the same. They were not. Just like Michael Floyd's DUI wasn't the same as Fitz's. Not all crimes are the same, neither is the punishment they warrant.

Exactly. I really could give a rats ass how Michigan State deals with its players. Some people on this blog care too much about how Michigan State deals with its players. Turn about is fair play, and if a Spartan fan is giving you grief over this - you've probably earned it.

Does Michigan allow expungements if one pleads guilty but finishes probation? In Illinois, any conviction of guilty means you can only get sealing, and even then it's only for most misdemeanors and 4 select felonies.

That's an ideal world, but not a realistic one. If we lived in this kind of world, I'd go out and steal things from people all the time. As long as I only did it once, then they'd have to forgive me. With these kinds of situations, one time is too many. But I'm no moral expert.

i am. i think one game is a little light for what he did. though we still don't know the details. DPS is so horrible, this could've been something stupid as opposed to pre-meditated and we wouldn't know.

Well, the answer to your rhetorical question would be no. But I will return it with another rhetorical question... what did Hoke tell you? You're using a flawed argument here, as you are equally unknowing and taking just as big of a stab in the dark. Also, I don't think there was some secret football ritual where Clark was forced to swallow some burning hot ember or something to that effect.

A stab in the dark to say that Hoke levied other punishments? He basically said as much in press conferences. I dont really care one way or the other what happens with all this but the thing that does bother me is when our own fans assume Hoke is lying to us when he has given no reason to suspect it and has exhibited nothing but class and integrity since he got here.

The difference being you don't know what happened and came to the conclusion 1 game wasn't enough. The poster you were responding to didn't make that type of statement, so no, he wasn't "Taking just as big of a stab in the dark."

Yes, flawed argument. You know as much as anyone else what consisted of those punishments. I'm sure there was more, but the tone of your post insinuated that Hoke had taken some pretty heavy handed measures. You don't know that.

For the record, I'm pretty neutral as to how this punishment was approached. I do, however, have a huge problem with the hypocrisy of the board in regards to this compared to other teams which have undergone this same thing.

I think football is a secondary issue. If he really is a bad kid then he should be kicked out of school, not just the team. So, the question is whether he is a bad kid or a kid who made a mistake. The people in a position to know think the latter.

I obviously don't know what happened so I can't speculate as to if this was an overly harsh sentence or if he got off easy. But if he has no previous and stays outta trouble I wonder if he is getting it wiped out after completing his punishment? The press is going to have a field day with a guy having a felony that continues to play.

Example - when Glenn Winston was charged with beating that hockey player up he was pled down from a felony to a misdemeanor (high court) and had to do months in jail.

Clark will be sentenced at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 23 -- the same day and time as teammate Fitz Toussaint (DUI) -- and faces a maximum punishment of 15 years in prison and a $3,000 fine. He will be sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows him to have the charge expunged if he successfully completes probation.

He has to be out for a while. College kids do stupid shit. Drunk college kids do stupider shit. I get how Fitz ends up doing what he did, I don't condone it, but I get it. This is premeditated and especially absurd when the school is giving you a stipend to buy your own gd laptop. I understand a one game suspension as a temporary measure before he's been convicted, but now you have to come down hard.

Gotcha. I really only care what Michigan does for the record. I might shake my head in silence at what Notre Dame, Michigan State, or any other program does, but at the end of the day I really only care about Michigan.

Also, every situation is different and we never really have all the details. The coaches have all the facts that we aren't privy to. We have to trust that what they are doing is in the best interest of the player and the school. How other schools handle these situations is not something I have a vested interest in.

I appreciate your convictions to your stance, but you are saying that everyone had issues with what Dion Sims did and they compare to what Grant Winston and Chris Rucker did. The Dion Sims case and the Frank Clark cases are similar, but that is where the comparison between what Dantonio did and what Hoke is doing. Did Clark assault anybody like Winston did? As far as we know, Clark did not violate probation and break a court order like Chris Rucker did. I guess if you think bashing in someone's skull and almost killing them because you got angry with said person's room mate over a women at the bar is the same as stealing a laptop, than you have a point. Otherwise, the complaints should stop there.

As to what the board says, who the hell cares. There are dumbasses everywhere you go. There are hypocritical dumbasses on this board. There are hypocritical dumbasses in politics, business, universities, football programs and yes, even in fans of college football teams. In fact, I would much rather have UM football fans in general, and MGoBlog board members in particular be hypocrites than some politician. I've been a hypocrite before (and probably will again). My guess is that your hands aren't completely clean on hypocrisy as well. If you've never been a hypocrite, than you're a better man than I.

He's not a child, he's old enough to know what he was doing. He deliberately stole a laptop. In doing so he probably ruined the school year (career, or life) for someone else, not just stole a few hundred bucks of electronics.

I'm not going to say kick him off the team, I'll leave that up to Hoke, but I am getting tired of people talking about college students as if they're 7 year olds. Stop it.

How do we know it was not supposed to be a joke that someone did not find funny and pressed charges. I could easily see this happening in a dorm setting. We have no idea what the circumstances are, Hoke does. Hoke has a good record of giving out the appropriate punishment. No reason to think he would suddenly be a big softy.

Drinking and driving endangers you and everyone around you. Regardless of whether it is premeditated, you can usually tell when you shouldn't be on the road and you should act accordingly and get a ride.

That's true, but since most states use the .08 standard and a breathalyzer that may or may not be accurate, even a perfectly sober person could theoretically get an OVI if they have bad luck. Many breathalyzers will return a false positive if the person can't blow hard enough or long enough, so if a person has emphysema or a bad cold, they're getting ticketed.

With all due respect, you have no idea whether or not the act was premeditated, nor whether Frank did, in fact, possess the necessary mental state, i.e., intent to commit larceny, to make him actually guilty of 2nd Degree Home Invasion. All you, or anyone outside the case, know is that he plead guilty to the offense. It is possible that it wasn't premeditated, he didn't have the requisite intent, but he's just not willing to risk getting sent to prison and coped a plea with the prosecutor in exchange for probation and a fine.

One has to remember that the CJS does not look kindly upon defendants that exercise their right to trial -- it costs the system time and money. It is naive to think that only people that are actually guilty plead as such. If you're facing a possible 15 years in prison upon conviction, and you can get a lesser sentence if you plea out, why in the world would you risk it? Fact is, you wouldn't. So many people have this completely unrealistic idea of how the system actually functions. For example, I have a close friend whose company was taken down by a Federal Prosecutor trying to make a name for himself by getting my friend's boss on a variety of charge. My friend was charged despite having no knowledge of the fraud that was committed -- he was a mortgage broker, and the boss was scamming everyone. He face something like 30 years in prison because of the multiple counts. His lawyer told him that the Feds had no case at all against him. But, it wasn't worth the chance because in Federal Court the defendant is convicted like 98% of the time. Although totally innocent and certain the Fed's had no case, he plead guilty, and was sentenced to 6 months in a minimum security prison, 6 months in a half-way-house, and 3 or years of probation. The whole ordeal nearly bankrupted him, but it pales in comparison to spending even 10 year in prison.

You seem to be implying that drunk driving is more acceptable than stealing a laptop.

Drunk driving kills people. A laptop is a piece of technology. I don't get how you can have those standards. The potential implications of drunk driving are much larger and much, much worse.

The truth is nobody here knows what happened in this case. Hoke probably does and decided a 1 game suspension is enough. This is a guy who's made it pretty clear he's not going to let players skate because they're important on the field. I think we should give Hoke enough respect to trust that he made the right call (and that he didn't forgot his moral compass to play Clark against Air Force and UMass) in this situation.

I can only imagine what this board would look like if Brian Kelly, Mark Dantonio or God Forbid, Urban Meyer, had a player who plead guilty to 2nd degree home invasion and did NOT get kicked off the team.

I'm not saying Black should be - I'm just asking for a bit of glass house rememberence the next time one of our rivals players gets in trouble and doesnt get the boot.

be kicked off the team, but put me in the camp that thinks a one game suspension is a bit light for a felony level crime. In general, I like the way Hoke has handled discipline (suspending Fitz against Alabama,etc.), but I do think a multi-game suspension, until conference play started, would have been more appropriate in this case.

You're right. Part of that is homerism and part of that is track record. The police record of the guys at Florida speaks for itself, Dantonio handling of Winston and Rucker was....not great, and Kelly probably gets more crap than he deserves. Plus, they're all pretty douchy. How else should Michigan fans react?

That's a pretty rediciulous viewpoint. What if the guy had let him previously borrow the computer, he couldn't get ahold of him, and assumed it'd be okay? I just 100% made up that scenario but who knows what happened? You don't, I don't. Not caring about the circustances is an absolutely absurd thing to say.

A self-declaration of guilt offers more doubt that he did it than a declaration of guilt by 12 peers who weren't there?

Actually, I am inclined to think the opposite. As stated supra, a guilty plea is often a way to mitigate a potentially harsh sentence, i.e., one isn't willing to risk going to prison for 15 years when they can get probation and a fine in exchange for the guilty plea.

Anyone else have the thought that they should always schedule a tomato can for the first game so suspensions accrued over the lengthy spring/summer don't bite us for a big game like this year? kinda slimeball, for sure though.

Suspensions should mean something. If they come against Delware State then what's the lesson? Oh you shouldn't commit a crime but we won't punish you since this game is more important?

Can we be adults here for a second? Let's quit pretending that we know at all what happened. He plead guility to a felony. That doesn't really tell us much. It could mean a series of different things. It could mean he's not guilty but didn't want to fight a charge and miss the year (or just have it drag on). It could mean that he's not sorry but he's on tape and his lawyer convinced to plea. It could mean anything inbetween. Saying that he got off light or saying that he should have missed the UMass game and not Alabama because U of M needed him are ridiculous comments at this point (well the cupcakes for suspensions comment is always ridiclous).

Let's quit pretending? Let's quit pretending he's a little boy who stole a lollipop from the corner store. We do know that he stole a laptop, and judging by the charges against him, a high-end one that cost at least $1800.

A felony is a felony in my mind. I may not know all the details, but the state does, and they are assigning a certain level of severity to his crimes. I believe that Carr's SOP was to suspend the player from the team until it was resolved and let them back on the team if the charges were dropped. I liked that. What I don't like is him getting the same punishment, essentially, as a crime that generally results in 30 days in jail. I don't think he should necessarily be kicked of the team because it's apparent that it's not cut and dry by the punishment being offered to him by the state, but a one-game suspension is not enough. If that's the extent of the punishment, then I'll be sorely disappointed.

I think one game is fine. Just because the word felony is involved people seem to freak out, but is this really any worse than what Fitz did? Or rather is this really that terrible a crime? He shouldn't have done it no doubt, but hopefully it will help him grow, and he'll put it behind him.

If the laptop had been $300 dollars cheaper or whatever, it would be a different charge. Stealing isn't exactly a victimless crime, but in the grand scheme of things it's not the worst thing you can do to someone either. I look at this as a bad decision where no one really got hurt. Put the kid on a short leash and see if he can stay on the straight and narrow. I'm glad Hoke and the legal system are handling it in that way.

It sounds like he is getting what some states call a "diversion". He admits guilty, but no judgment of conviction is entered, so he technically won't be a convicted felon. As long as he holds up his end of the deal (successfully completing probation with no violations or new charges), the case gets dismissed and he has no criminal record.

A player gets in trouble? "Oh, he needs to bring the hammer down on Stonum" "oh wait, he did" "Oh, Stonum needs to be gone now" "Oh, he did kick him off even though he needs him" "Fitz needs to miss Bama" "Yay, Fitz misses Bama". How many times does a guy have to do what's right before he gets the benefit of the doubt? Or is it a case by case basis forever? Because "well, I like what he's done the first 5 times but the 6th isn't EXACTLY how I'd do it so RAGE!" is going to get old.

I think everyone would agree that a top priority should be maintaining a high-character team. Considering these discipline issues should *ideally* occurr only rarely, having a fanbase that scrutinizes each decision is a perfectly reasonable check on the program. Considering that punishment protocols are entirely decided by Hoke, then expecting perfection on every decision is also reasonable.

I, along with what appears to be other people, think that Hoke should suspend Clark for more than 1 game. I hope and expect that Hoke will do the right thing. But it's reasonable for me to voice my opinoin now and later.

"Doing what I think he should do." Which we've seen on this and other threads, varies widely. And most often, the people who cry "I can't believe he's allowing this!" are never backtracking on their statements when he actually ends up doing it. He can't make everyone happy, and doesn't need to. It's not his job to answer to ever student who hasn't even graduated and would rather take another keg stand than show up to the game on time but has the right to analyze every case on a posting board where they don't even bother to spellcheck half the time.

where you think that the need to spellcheck only applies to "ever" other post and that a person's fandom can be surmised by two or three unrelated, misinterpreted blog posts.

I agree that he can't make everyone happy, and I agree that many people don't give Hoke his due credit after the fact. I also realize that there is plenty of time for him to make a new decision in this case, and based on his track record, I will probably agree with it.

I still don't see the issue with people voicing their opinion on it either way...

This is terrible, and although I think the kid deserves a 2nd chance, 1 game is absurd! This is felony home invasion, that he stole a computer is secondary, he broke into someone's place and who would have known what else could have happened if someone had been there, that's why the CJ system treats home invasion so seriously.

1 game is objectionable, just way below the standards we have come to expect at Michigan.

This is still a very young man. It sounds like he has a path to work through his legal problems and come out without a record. He has an opportunity to turn this into a learning experience. I hope for his sake and the sake of society that he takes advantage of this opportunity and thrives. Would suspending him longer help that progress or hurt it? I have no idea. Neither do you, unless you happen to be within his circle of trust. I'll trust Hoke given his greater knowledge of Mr. Clark and his track record for taking breaches of the law seriously.

You may have an idea in your mind of what's "appropriate" for this violation, but in the end, Hoke's job is to shepherd young men and mold a team, not apply a pre-set punishment. I hope Hoke does what's right for the player and the team, and I trust that he will. Consistency is the hobgoblin of many an internet commenter.

I feel like most people don't really care what Hoke does concerning Clark (suspend him, sit him, etc...), but if Hoke doesn't suspend him, they will look like complete assholes to their sparty and Ohio friends who they have given shit to recently, so they demand Hoke go overboard and try to get him kicked out of Ann Arbor so they can say "see, we're different."

RCMB is certainly taking the high road on this one. They're reasoning is that Dion Sims plead to misdemeanors, and that MSU has a policy that doesn't allow convicted felons to play on their athletic teams.

I have no clue whether or not this is true. I'll let all of you look at it.

From what I remember of the Sims case it was his dad that was part of the organized syndicate, not Dion. His dad gave them to Dion, who store and/or handed them off to buyers. Dion apparently had no idea that it was an illegal ring that his dad was operating he was just an ignorant middleman.

The difference with Frank is, like you said, he stole one. He actually entered a place, took it, and left with it. That one is all on him and I couldn't care less what the coaches or school decide to do with him. Makes us all look bad.

I wasn't a part of it and I'm guessing that you weren't either so it's pointless for either of us to speculate on his involvement except for what we can all Google. Big difference is that, according to the court system, he received and concealed. He didn't walk into places and steal them (like Frank did).

DETROIT -- A Michigan State football player has pleaded guilty to receiving and concealing stolen property in the theft of laptop computers from several Detroit Public Schools.

Sims could qualify for a break for first-time offenders that would clear his record, according to The Detroit News. The deal calls for Sims to cooperate with investigators and give "truthful testimony" against others charged in the scheme.

Sims is one of 10 men charged following an investigation into the theft of 104 laptops valued at $158,000. Authorities say the computers were sold online and to acquaintances.

"He did not buy the computers or sell them," said Sims' lawyer, Steve Fishman, according to The Detroit News. "He pled guilty to being the middleman."

"This isn't because he's an athlete," Fishman said of the plea deal, according to the report. "Anybody in his situation, with his age, his clean record and the cooperation he has already given the prosecution is entitled to get this break."

The 19-year-old sophomore from Detroit has been suspended indefinitely from team-related activities.

This non-suspension is problematic. Hoke suspended a player who PLEAD to a second degree felony charge for one game. What's worse is the number of commenters on here espousing a know-nothing, "coach knows best" mentality that would fit in quite well on bucknuts. If the recent spate of scandals in college football taught anyone anything it should be that many times the coach often does not, in fact, know best and needs to be held to account. Especially popular coaches who the fan base reflexively assumes will "do the right thing."

Further, for those arguing that pleading to something does not necesasrily mean the person is guilty of the crime, you are generally correct. However, that depends on the plea. As a lawyer who does pro bono criminal work, I can tell you that I would almost never advise my client to plead to a felony without some evidence of culpability. Why? Because status as a felon is a big deal in today's society and, even if "expunged" from your record, that fact will have to be disclosed on every job application you fill out from that day forth. This is not an insignificant black mark to carry around the rest of your life. Further, if the alleged perp violates the terms set forth by the prosecutor he can have a number of rights stripped from him due to his newly minted status as a felon. That Mr. Clark's attorney felt Mr. Clark should still plead to such a significant charge probably indicates that the attorney felt there was some risk of conviction to a more serious crime , possibly first degree felony home invasion or that the plea would prevent the prosecutor from pursuing the most draconian penalties available under the law. (see for statute: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28fnllhkalysz0ja55dgigk2ju%29%29/mile...).

In the end, I don't care if Mr. Clark is deep down a good guy, would never do this again, or has a slew of mitigating factors in his favor. He admitted that he broke into a residence (dorm room) and committed a felony (presumably the theft of an item $1800 in value). That is unacceptable behavior for a Michigan football player and any human being in general. Felony home invasion is a crime punishable by 15 years in prison. The Michigan legislature did not create a penalty that stiff because home invasion is no big deal. People are killed or injured all the time in simple home invasions gone bad. Suspension from the program for a year would be a tolerant response; a single game smacks of a program with d-line issues trying to get their best players on the field at all costs.

I state that in the post, that the plea was probably because the prosecutor had a stronger charge on the table (maybe first degree, arguing somehow that someone was in the "residence" when Mr. Clark invaded it. Tenuous, but since it is a dorm, an enterprising lawyer might try to make it stick), but that could also be the result of Mr. Clark's attorney thinking there was exposure to jail time. The issue is that I, as a lawyer, am not pleading my client to a felony unless there is some evidence of culpability. Some commenters have implied that Frank Clark might not have done anything wrong and that he was pleading just to get this over with. If he plead to a misdemeanor that would be a possibility, but since he plead to a felony that implies the prosecutor had something more than just hearsay backing it up.

I am with you. This does not put the university in the most positive light. I understand kids make mistakes, but the university need to hold firm and hold those accountable for those who represent the university.

Totally agree. It's one thing to make a mistake like being busted for an MIP or not having your wallet on you when driving. It's another to enter a property and steal a laptop computer. There's just no excuse for that imo.

Unfortunately, we're all speaking from a position of ignorance as to the facts.

I think many people have an image in their mind of Frank lurking in the shadows and maliciously breaking into someone's dorm room to steal their laptop. Although that might be the case, I think people have to remember that the police -- whether UM or Ann Arbor -- and the prosecutor could be acting in a very aggressive manner, like they did with Josh Furman.

Remember, the prosecutor doesn't need the victim to press charges against the accused. Just like the Furman case -- where the woman who was struck by Josh testified in his defense -- Frank might have been doing something the he thought was legit, but the dorm staff didn't and called the police. The police don't have to care that it was a mistake, that Frank thought it was his laptop, or that he was just playing a joke on a friend. If he broke in and took property that wasn't his, they're going to assume that he had intent to commit larceny and arrest him, it's for his lawyer to straighten it out with the prosecutor.

As we saw with Furman, the AA Prosecutor seems willing to press charges against Michigan football players despite there being circumstances where she might use her discretion to not charge them. I am curious as to whether she is as vigilant in prosecuting the non-athlete/football playing students, and the population of the city in general.

I have feeling the fact that Hoke didn't kick him off the team, let him play against AF, and is seemingly going to let Frank play out the rest of the season, indicates that the whole thing is a misunderstanding and an overly aggressive prosecutor trying to make a name for herself.

You think he was playing a joke? You think he would actually plead guilty to a felony and have it follow him around as he applies for jobs, tries to get into grad school, tries to get an apartment, etc. rather than attempt to explain himself and clear his name? That's just delusional. FYI - expungement isn't a clean slate. Most applications for important things make you state whether you have been convicted of or even taken to court for a felony and to explain the circumstances. Pleading guilty to a felony is a big fucking deal.

I'm a lawyer and know people sometimes plead guilty to lesser offenses under certain circumstances but this is not one of them. If he was pleading guilty to like misdemeanor trespassing or something maybe...but people pretty much don't plead guilty to felonies when they haven't done anything wrong.

Also, wasn't he charged with the same crime he is pleading guilty to? i.e., he's not pleading down the charge? Again, an innocent person simply would not do this unless he has the dumbest fucking lawyer alive representing him.

Why, because it doesn't follow the same policy that Hoke has followed before?

Hoke suspended a player who PLEAD to a second degree felony charge for one game.

Also he dealt with him internally which you fail to mention.

What's worse is the number of commenters on here espousing a know-nothing, "coach knows best" mentality that would fit in quite well on bucknuts.

Are you saying that the suspension and the internal punishment weren't enough, and that Coach Hoke doesn't know what's best? I guess you are.

If the recent spate of scandals in college football taught anyone anything it should be that many times the coach often does not, in fact, know best and needs to be held to account.

It appears as though you're reaching to Penn State/Ohio State for some credibility. I would contend that if those two incidents have shown us anything, it's that these coaches are well aware of what happens when you are exposed for turning away from controversy.

Further, for those arguing that pleading to something does not necesasrily mean the person is guilty of the crime, you are generally correct. However, that depends on the plea. As a lawyer who does pro bono criminal work, I can tell you that I would almost never advise my client to plead to a felony without some evidence of culpability.

You should also know that if the evidence is solid enough, a plea might be in your client's best interest. But you knew that already....

That Mr. Clark's attorney felt Mr. Clark should still plead to such a significant charge probably indicates that the attorney felt there was some risk of conviction to a more serious crime , possibly first degree felony home invasion or that the plea would prevent the prosecutor from pursuing the most draconian penalties available under the law.

There would have to be someone present in the room or a weapon involved. I think if this was the case that Coach Hoke would not take the risk of this fact being exposed (I know I wouldn't). However, you are reaching here so that it sounds more serious. If we had all the facts, we could debate those facts. As it currently stands we do not. Making absolute statements based on hypothetical situations is not a very scientific way to make a point.

Suspension from the program for a year would be a tolerant response; a single game smacks of a program with d-line issues trying to get their best players on the field at all costs.

I don't agree. I trust that what is being done is best for the player and the University.

Now that you mention it, I don't know what "internal punishment" was dealt to him. Probably should not have used this in my argument without knowing what it really meant. If it was running stairs then yes, that doesn't really fit the offense. If it was some form of volunteer work within the community (Boys and Girls Club, YMCA Youth Group, Big Brothers Big Sisters, etc...), that would seem more appropriate. Hoke didn't seem to want to divulge that information though.

You're talking about a penalty that a football coach can levy on a player. Clark is fully responsible in the eyes of the law - the idea that the difference between 2 or 8 games missed will somehow make his presence more or less acceptable is hysterical to me. It's a football game.

The Student Code does not automatically expel or strip scholarships from students who steal - look it up. They are subject to a hearing, and then the punishment meted.

If the law does not take him off the field, and the University Does not take him off the field, we're talking about an inane punishment that Hoke can exact.

Honestly, I don't care about the football implications of the decision. Second degree home invasion, a felony, is a serious crime. If someone was in there when Mr. Clark went in to steal the laptop or if someone caught him in the act, who knows what happens. The potential for serious injury is there, especially considering that Mr. Clark is likely twice the size of the person he was stealing from. Regardless of what punishment is required by law, discipline is not limited to what the law and/or school regulation dictates as the minimum.

The reason I would want a more serious punishment is because this sends the kid the message that what he did was worth 1/13th or 14th of the thing he cares most about (football). Maybe Frank Clark doesn't care that much about football and suspending him more games wouldn't be any more of a deterrent than 1 game, but I wouldn't bet on that. The kid intentionally did something he knew was immoral and illegal and also something he should have known could put others in harm's way. That kind of abject selfishness deserves a more serious response than what we've seen so far.

Now, am I clamoring for Brady Hoke's head or something? No. But if it was my son, I would hope his coach and those who cared about him (including me) would respond in a much stronger manner to make sure this didnt become a habit and really ruin his life.

1. Any employer will google him from now on and know that he plead to a second degree felony. Too many newspapers, blogs, etc. for this to be covered up. So what he is absolutely required to reveal is immaterial.

2. No employer asks just for convictions. If he takes the bar, tries to pass the boards, whatever, they will ask him whether he was ever charged with a felony or ever plead guilty to a felony. For the bar I know you have to list, literally, every interaction you've ever had with the law including speeding tickets (which in my case were expunged, but still required to be listed meaning I had to go back to the Johnson County courthouse and have them pull my ticket records to ensure I remembered where and when I got a ticket in 1999). A friend from law school was initially denied admission to law school as well as the bar on his first application because he had 3 minor in possession incidents, two of which had been expunged.

3. Even if employers didn't ask, this is not information you want an employer to find out later. He will have to explain it at every juncture in his life as a prophylactic measure.

This whole situation is what it is and all the 'suspend him longer' people forget that college athletics is a business even at michigan. And all the 'you don't know what really happened' people are blind fools who want to excuse a kid as boys will be boys when he stole a fucking laptop. Stole. Not a joke.

So why don't we all shut the fuck up, swallow our medicine, on both sides, and move on.

At the end of the day, if he plays another down for Michigan it means we've played a convicted felon. I don't know what the circumstances are, but I do know when Furman faced felony charges he fought them and won.

Had Clark had his day in court, I might have a different view. All I have though is the fact his lawyer seems to thing plea bargaining with a felony is a good idea. Typically that kind of stuff only happens when your lawyer already knows your goose is cooked. Normally you'd expect at the very least in exchange for the guilty pleae you'd get this bumped down to a misdemeanor, but it wasn't based on the information we have. I'm somewhat unhappy Clark played against Air Force when he was mere days away from pleading guilty and I really hope I don't see a felon out there wearing maize and blue against UMass.

If/when Clark's record is expunged, he can come back onto the team. So long as you type 'Frank Clark' into the court's computer system and get 'Convicted Felon' back as the status, he's off the team. Really considering he performed an action on campus that resulted in a felony conviction, he likely should be kicked out of school. I'd assume that's in our code of conduct and if it isn't I have to wonder why not.

It's an interesting question. I'm sure there is precedent for when someone steals a laptop. I imagine it's a fairly common occurance because of the opportunity to do so. And it would make senes to deal with it pretty harshly as a deterrent,

I'll be interested to see what Coach Hoke does, but given that he has already been suspended and reinstated, I doubt there is any further punishment. If not, it does seem light.

I've very skeptical of that. When Furman was offered a plea deal he rejected it on the grounds that he would have plead regarding a felony and been kicked off the team as a result. He flat out said that in an interview. If Clark pleads guilty to a felony and is still on the team, I'm going to wonder exactly what is going on here.

But I thought I heard that it was more that a violent felony that would be an automatic boot. In other words, domestic violence would be a one-way ticket, but tax fraud would be a case-by-case thing. After all, BWC's charge was originally a felony, and while it was obviously hilariously overcharged, I doubt Hoke would have booted him if it had somehow stuck.

im seeing some people who are saying he should be booted off the team. you hear those who say playing football is a privledge. my question to you is: so he also be kicked out of school then right? i mean do u want a convicted felon on campus? i only ask and say this because if u believe he shouldnt play football cause its a privledge, i can argue attending college is also a privledge. so why does he get to keep one privledge and not the other?

We defend, what we care about, if this was Alabama, USC, or Texas , we as Michigan fan's would be irate and in dis-belief, that this player

was not dismissed from the affore mentioned teams. However, we all have a biased view from, all that is not MICHIGAN. We should be thankful that we do not have to accept the criticism and the so called praise that come's with these decisions made by Universiites every day.

but as an instructor at the university, i think that any member of the community who steals a computer a student uses for work should be thrown out immediately, at a minimum, and probably fined enough to replace the computer and/or recover the data, too. now, i doubt an ipad is really a work machine, but who knows.

i didn't say what you think i said. [edit: apparently that wasn't clear enough for the internet. i said that anybody who steals a work computer should be tossed. i don't know if he stole a work computer. since it's apparently an ipad, i seriously doubt it's a work computer. but i don't know. that's why i said i didn't know in the original post. that's also why it's wrong to attribute to me the claim that frank clark should be thrown out. i said that he should be thrown out if he stole somebody's work computer. you can't ignore the condition of a conditional statement, and i don't know what sort of computer he stole.]

and no. it's an internet message board, not a piece of academic writing.

addresses this before criticizing the one game suspension, but IMO he should be kicked off the team. Certain crimes are "one strike and you're out" - it's just a matter of where you want to draw that line. To me, breaking into someone's space and stealing what amounts to a couple grand crosses that line. This isn't a simple mistake or error in judgment - it's a serious felony punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

Discipline is threatening to become an issue on this team. Hoke needs to keep cracking down on this stuff before it gets out of hand.

To every person in the "if Frank Clark plays another down for Michigan, Michigan will have played a 'convicted felon'" camp, please try to understand something.

First, as I and other have said over and over in this thread, Frank plead guilty because he was offered a deal under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, which allows him to have the charge expunged if he successfully completes probation.

Requirements for HYTA:

Age:
In order for HYTA to apply, you must be between the ages of 17 and 21 when the alleged act occurred

Crime:
HYTA is not available if you are charged with a life felony, certain offenses dealing with controlled substances or traffic offense.

Other considerations:You must plead guilty in order for the judge to consider the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. It is always the judges decision whether or not you qualify. After you plead, the judge can still place you on probation or in jail, however once you have completed your sentence, the incident will be removed from your record. Once you plea, your record becomes a nonpublic record while proceedings are deferred and you are on probation. The nonpublic record will be open only to the courts, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services, law enforcement personnel and prosecuting attorneys.

Frank is NOT a convicted felon!

Further, as I've said repeatedly, pleading guilty with an arraganged lighter sentence -- like the HYTA -- as a way to avoid a potential 15 year sentence does NOT mean that he's actually guilty. It means that he and his attorney weighed the risks of going to trial and decided that they don't want to risk it -- even if they think they have a good case, they could still lose.

Furman took his chances, and won. Every case is different.

Personally, I think this was a misunderstanding, but the AA Prosecutor has a hard-on for Michigan football players, and refuses to take the circumstances into consideration.

Expungement is not foolproof. Most applications for grad school, jobs, etc. as if you have been convicted of a felony. Getting something expunged does not mean the answer to that question is "no." If you lie and the other side has the means for looking such things up, you are screwed.

Example - the Character and Fitness Board for getting a law license asks this question after you pass the bar and can and will deny your ability to get a law license if you lie and answer "no" and have had a felony expunged. If you correctly answer "yes" then you have to explain the circumstances in a face-to-face interview and it's decided on a case to case basis whether you are fit to have the license. I'm sure similar mechanisms are in place for if he ever wanted to get a government job, become a cop, etc.

Pleading guilty to a felony has serious consequences beyond the immediate issues he will face. The chance that he is not guilty is very close to 0%.

I keep trying to explain this to people that once you plead, you will have to explain this the rest of your life. And even if the conviction is eventually expunged, Frank Clark is a convicted felon for the rest of his life. Expungment just means that it won't be used against you by the legal system going forward, e.g. if he gets arrested again, the expunged crime won't be used to increase his sentence as a repeat offender. This does nothing to help you in the non-criminal real world.

People, like, unsurprisingly, Tater, Want Clark to PAY because otherwise he can't act like a morally superior dickhead about other programs. Frank Clark's life does not exist to give you a talking point in this impossibly idiotic dick measuring contest you have with a rival fucking fan, nor should his fate be sacrificed to your petty relativism.

Maybe Clark should be sanctioned harder. Not knowing ant detail of what he did, this forum isn't the body to decide it, and anyone expressing an opinion is operating from a place of extreme ignorance.

as someone who had an old, cheap laptop stolen when I was in grad school, it's an incredible feeling of violation even without any violence or home invasion. This particular laptop had a chunk of a dissertation draft on it and set me back for a while, not to mention all the personal data that you'd normally have on your laptop, but even putting that to the side, it was more the sense of "who the fuck does the thief think he/she is?" This wasn't stealing bread to feed the family, I'm certain of that. Seriously, I wanted to take a baseball bat to whoever it was. Still kinda do.

You cannot go around taking things that you know don't belong to you. People know that by the time they're about, what, 4 or 5 years old? Six at the latest?

I'm also an attorney. Spare me the business about plea deals. It's not the classification or permanence of the crime on a record that offends me so much. It's simply that some people feel they can help themselves to whatever they can get away with.

Hope the kid gets his life together, and frankly hope it's at a different university.

Clark should be on the scout team and not allowed to play games until the sentencing IMO. At that point we will be able to tell if this was a plea deal and its mot as bad as it seems or if it indeed is a serious offense.

Ppl are entitled to their opinions and can say one game is fine but I think that is a joke. Felony should be more than one game. Hell, frank could never get any job that I've had before now that he is a felon. Let's not pretend its not a big deal.

A simple statement by Hoke or Clark's lawyer about what they believe Clark actually did would be of tremendous benefit, but the chances that we'll be getting a statement from either of them is basically zero.

However, prior to the Alabama game, Hoke stated that both Fitz and Clark made bad decisions. I find it hard to believe that Hoke would make this statement about Clark with no elaboration if what Clark did was simply a prank or the result of a "misunderstanding." That statement by Hoke was a big sign to me that Clark did indeed commit the act he's accused of.

how would a statement from the guy retained to represent Clark help anything? I generally agree with most of your comments but this one is...odd. I'd give a hypothetical comment from Frank's lawyer re it being a misunderstanding about 0 credibility. He is paid to either prove his innocence or minimize the damage from conviction so you aren't going to get some unbiased rundown of the facts from him/her.

"Yep, my client is guilty as hell! Stole a laptop and there was no excuse for it! I kept him out of jail though, lol."

It wouldn't, Don, because contrary to your apparent belief, it is not the job of Clark, Clark's attorney, or Brady Hoke, to communicate with you in order for you to pick the appropriate level of outrage.

Very few of the people on this thread that want Clark OFF THE TEAM have expressed an opinion that the penalty handed down by the Court - probation, or the School discipline commmittee - none, is too light. They are, however, upset about what Hoke does, who is probably in power to punish him the least (he cannot imprison Clark or expel him, like the other two can).

This would indicate that they're not ACTUALLY concerned that Clark is not being punished enough - they're concerned that he'll blight the perception of their precious program.

Some people view it differently - that getting free college to play football at a prestigious university is a privilege...and there are certain expectations the players must live up to in order to maintain this privilege. If you think like this, and clearly many do, it's just a matter of where you want to draw the line. Not everyone thinks the courtroom is the only place consequences should flow from criminal actions. There's a number of other reasons too:

Lots of kids look up to the football players and the university has an interest in maintaining a clean program.

It's better from a deterrence perspective to come down hard on offenders. Other players are less likely to commit crimes if there are harsh consequences to stuff they care about (i.e., football). This deterrence effect could keep many kids on a better path and out of trouble because they fear the consequences.

It's bad from a "brand" perspective to have convicted felons, etc. play on your team. Football is a business, as many say. Well, then why do you think 99% of employment contracts for executives in businesses have a clause in their contracts stating that they can be fired for cause immediately (without severance) upon being convicted/plea of nolo contendere of a felony or any crime of moral turptitude? Same concept.

Believe it or not, some people would rather root for a cleaner program than get more wins...and not just because it gives them "bragging rights" over rivals. The W/L column for us would probably look better if we started cutting kids, medical redshirts, greyshirting, letting all kids play always regardless of criminal records...but I don't see many people arguing for a win at all costs model. Most have a line somewhere they don't want to cross.

A team with bad disclipline issues might be worse than a team with less talent and more focus. People can argue that getting rid of talented players with criminal issues actually makes the team better.

I could go on and on but the point is that it's not as simple as you make it out to be. You always seem to seize on the low hanging fruit arguments for some reason.

I thought you quit MgoBlog to be a LAWYER from the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL. ANN ARBOR.

Anyway - I reject virtually all those argument merely because I don't view Frank Clark's life as something to made "an example" of - that does a disservice to Clark. When the school, and the team, grants a scholarship to a player it takes on a portion of the role of developing him not just as an athlete, but as a person. Tossing him off the team, to me, doesn't serve this purpose. That's not to say anything goes - but a non-violent crime from a first-offender certainly seems, to me, to be something we can deal with.

The school owes Clark more than to hold him up as an example for "the kids", future recruits, "the brand", or as a totem of moral superiority to the fans. Frank Clark is a person - not a symbol. People should remember that, I think.

his football scholarship as more of a right than a privilege. My goalposts are in a different place. I don't think my viewpoint or your viewpoint necessarily holds the moral high ground...it's just a difference of opinion.

The only time I see you post is to take a contrarian position on something and berate Tater et al for having irrational fandom preferences.

Now returning to my regularly scheduled lurking and not commenting on stuff.

You're looking at it more like a college scholarship given out of the financial aid department, and then taken away by some nebulous body who doesn't even know the student. That's not how football works. From recruiting on to graduation it's a family atmosphere. If your kid did this, would you kick him out of the house? Or kick his butt? Not that there aren't things you can do that as a family member you can't protect them from anymore, but where is that point?

And if you want consider how it "helps a football team/program", if you get the reputation as a program that "man, if you screw up once there, they're ditching you...they don't care about you" recruiting becomes tougher, and saying you'll look after Mommy's kid is going to fall on deaf ears, and we'll see how do recruiting then.

There's a line that you can't come back from. I don't know if we've hit that, because we haven't even heard from all the parties involved yet. But I do know we're in an area that's gray, not black and white. It's not laughable like Big Will, and not "how can you even think about keeping him?" like he raped or murdered someone. So I can wait a couple of days to find out. We waited a long time with a dozen threads and thousands of posts for Fitz which was a whole lot of nothing*.

Since no one actually knows what happened, let's all start saying he had a gun while stealing it. Maybe we can add that there were kids there so he was endangering children. This game where we know zero details but get to make up whatever we want about the situation so we can then feel appropriately outraged at something we conjured up is ridiculous. You'd think we would realize after Big Will was first charged with a felony and most of the board went batshit that we don't really know as much as we think we do.

If the coaches deem that his punishment is over, then I am fine with that. They have proven that they can be tough discipinarians, so obviously there is more to this story or else the punishment would be more severe.

Demar Dorsey had his full ride tacked bc of felony charges that were dismissed. I personally think he would have changed out defense as a whole right now but thw university did what it thought was best. This is no different. Frank Clark should be removed from the team as a whole and made an example of.

Coach Hoke know what he wants from his players on the field and as men. It makes me sick to see stuff like this happen but what matter most is how you handle it.

Frank Clark is NOT a convicted felon. Why is that so hard to understand? He will only be a convicted felon if, and only if, he violates the terms of his probation. He is pleading guilty as per an HYTA agreement, which if you bothered to do any research, requires a guilty plea in exchange for probation the offense being expunged from his record upon successful completion of the terms of the probation.